India, U.S. agree to nuclear pact

[Neo]

Thursday, September 14, 2006javascript:; http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/print.asp?page=2006\09\14\story_14-9-2006_pg7_38
US arms experts seek more restrictions on Indian nuclear deal

WASHINGTON: US weapons experts are calling on the US Senate to tighten provisions of a landmark civilian nuclear deal with India despite warnings by New Delhi that it cannot accept any more restrictions. The experts want legislation to have an up-front declaration that India has stopped production of fissile material – plutonium and highly enriched uranium – for nuclear weapons and an annual certification that the deal does not fuel New Delhi’s nuclear weapons program.

They also want measures prohibiting the United States from providing nuclear aid directly or through other suppliers to India if it breaks commitments made under a July 18, 2005 accord reached between US President George W Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Singh has made clear that India will not accept any conditions that go beyond the agreement with Bush and a plan they endorsed in which New Delhi would have 14 of its 22 nuclear reactors placed under international safeguards. India does not want to accept any US moratorium on the production of fissile material, but US weapons experts said the measures were necessary because India had not joined the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a global accord to limit the spread of nuclear weapons.

“In our view, these are responsible actions and steps the (US) Congress should take to ensure that the deal does not create what we would consider to be adverse and damaging proliferation problems,” said Arms Control Association executive director Daryl Kimball. Kimball was among 17 experts who sent a joint letter to the Senate on Tuesday with a set of recommendations ahead of a likely vote by the chamber on the nuclear deal this fall. Under the deal, Washington will aid development of civil nuclear power programmes in India in return for New Delhi placing its atomic facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. India tested nuclear weapons in 1974 and 1998 and is currently banned by the United States and other mostly industrialised nations from buying fuel for atomic reactors and other related equipment as a result. In July, the US House of Representatives adopted the deal only after ensuring that even after it is passed by the Senate and becomes law, the nuclear cooperation agreement would come under full oversight authority by Congress.

The House had demanded periodic reporting from President Bush on India’s compliance with key US objectives in the region as well as on issues of non-proliferation.

Republican Senate leader Bill Frist is consulting with colleagues on when and how best to bring the legislation to the floor for debate and vote, his office said. “It is something that he wants to get done this month,” Carolyn Weyforth, spokeswoman for Frist, told AFP. Agencies


http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\09\14\story_14-9-2006_pg7_38

 

[Neo]

Thursday, September 14, 2006javascript:; http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/print.asp?page=2006\09\14\story_14-9-2006_pg7_37
‘Indo-US N-deal might destabilise South Asia’

By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: The Indo-US nuclear cooperation agreement, if it remains unchecked, could once again destabilise the South Asian region with long term implications, and lead to possible transformation of intra and interregional alliance structures, according to an analysis by a Pakistani expert.

Wing Commander Adil Sultan of the Pakistan Strategic Plans Division, who produced a research study on this issue during a fellowship at the Stimson Centre, argued that the nuclear agreement had also highlighted the need to integrate the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) into the mainstream non-proliferation regime through innovative approaches that could ensure that non-NPT nuclear weapons states (NWS) did not export nuclear technology to other non-NWS and in return were benefited from peaceful uses of nuclear technology.

Sultan wrote that the nuclear deal with America, as it stood, could allow India to make qualitative and quantitative improvement in its nuclear arsenal, triggering a possible nuclear arms competition in the region, involving Pakistan, India and possibly China, thus destabilising the entire region.

Similarly, the overall India-US strategic partnership at the possible cost of regional instability could impinge security interests of other regional players, forcing smaller countries to re-evaluate their security imperatives and explore options such as strategic realignments to better safeguard their security interests, he added.

He said that the emerging India-US relationship aimed at enhancing India’s stature in the region, with possible negative implications for South Asian stability, had provided the US with an opportunity to use its increased leverage with India and work towards regional stability by helping resolve outstanding disputes between India and Pakistan.

He said the US could help bring Islamabad and New Delhi into the mainstream non-proliferation regime through some kind of a regional arrangement, and under a treaty obligation, which could alleviate the proliferation concerns of the international community, arising mainly because of the non-NPT status of India and Pakistan.

Sultan wrote that the heated debate triggered by the Indo-US treaty remained mostly focused on its non-proliferation implications, with little or no attention to its regional implications. Opponents of the deal called it a “fatal error” for the global non-proliferation regime, fearing a domino effect. They contended that the deal could have a negative effect on the behaviour of several states, including Brazil, South Africa and Ukraine that had given up their nuclear weapons programmes.

Supporters of the deal, however, argued that the sale of nuclear technology would serve both countries’ national security interests as well as the goals of non-proliferation. The proponents of the India-US nuclear initiative argued that it was an effort to strengthen India’s ability to expand its civilian nuclear energy through nuclear power, but others countered that the civil nuclear cooperation agreement, once materialised in its true essence by 2025, could increase nuclear power production to a maximum of 6.5 to 8 percent only.

Sultan argued that the US administration did not seem interested in demanding a moratorium on fissile material production from India. The Indian leadership, while ruling out any such probability, has asserted that “there would be no capping of our strategic program, and the separation plan ensures adequacy of fissile material and other inputs to meet current and future requirements of our strategic programme, based on our assessment of the threat scenarios”. “No constraint has been placed on our right to construct new facilities for strategic purposes,” said Indian leaders.

He wrote that the Indo-US strategic cooperation aimed at making India a global military power while according a symbolic status of a major non-Nato ally refuted any such presumption by Pakistan.

This could impact strategic thinking within Pakistan, thus forcing it to re-evaluate its strategic priorities and work on the contingencies in which US and India would be close military and political partners against future potential adversaries, he said, adding that other regional powers, including China and Russia, were also conscious of the changing strategic environment. Pakistan, in the last few years, has been trying to alter its country-centric approach and has adopted a more pragmatic foreign policy, involving reorientation of its relations with its regional neighbours including Russia.

Sultan also pointed out that Pakistan had so far adopted a cautious approach and seemed not to be in a “panic mode.” He said that Pakistan would most likely follow the policy of ‘wait and see’ before making adjustments in its minimum deterrent posture. Some of the factors that could affect Pakistan’s strategic thinking are the final outcome of the deal and how it would shape India’s nuclear weapons potential. Pakistan would like to watch the likely conventional imbalance and if the Indo-US deal facilitated qualitative and/or quantitative improvement in India’s nuclear weapons capability, Pakistan would take definite remedial measures to ensure the credibility of its minimum nuclear deterrence, he added.


http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\09\14\story_14-9-2006_pg7_37

 

[Neo]

US group urges Bush not to help India’s N-arms plan

WASHINGTON, Sept 13: A US non-proliferation group has urged the Bush administration to ensure that its civil nuclear trade with India does not in any way assist or encourage the country’s nuclear weapons programme.

This and other suggestions by the Arms Control Association, an umbrella organisation representing influential non-proliferation lobbyists, are backed by 16 former US officials and experts.

The Indo-US nuclear deal comes up for hearing at the US Senate later this month. The House of Representatives has already approved the deal.

The ACA said that the suggestions, sent in a letter to the Senate on Tuesday, seek to remedy ‘serious flaws’ in the US-India nuclear deal. The group is also seeking to “further offset the adverse effects of the arrangement on US non-proliferation and security objectives.”

India has already expressed reservations with both the enabling legislation passed by the House of Representatives and the draft bill approved by the Senate Foreign Relations committee. It is unlikely to accept further restrictions.

But the experts who signed the ACA letter are encouraging lawmakers to adopt and uphold measures that they say are essential for US security and non-proliferation.

The ACA has also urged the Senate to prohibit the US government from continuing nuclear assistance or facilitating foreign nuclear exports to India if the Indian government or Indian entities break existing non-proliferation commitments and practices.

Yet another suggestion is to restrict full US nuclear trade until India joins the five original nuclear-weapon states in stopping the production of fissile material (plutonium and highly enriched uranium) for weapons or subscribes to a multilateral fissile production cut-off agreement.

“We believe these measures are necessary because India has neither joined the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, nor accepted safeguards on all of its nuclear facilities, and India’s non-proliferation policy is not fully consistent with the non-proliferation practices and responsibilities expected of the original nuclear-weapon states,” the letter said.

The experts who signed the letter noted that as part of the proposed deal, India has pledged to accept safeguards on only eight additional “civilian” nuclear facilities by 2014, while current and future military-related nuclear reactors, enrichment and reprocessing plants and weapons fabrication facilities would remain un-safeguarded.

Such ‘partial’ IAEA safeguards would do nothing to prevent the continued production of fissile material for weapons in un-safeguarded facilities, they said.

http://www.dawn.com/2006/09/14/top12.htm

 

[Neo]

India resigned to wait as US nuclear deal delayed


NEW DELHI (updated on: October 01, 2006, 20:52 PST): India sought to put on a brave face on Sunday over an unexpected delay in the approval of a landmark nuclear deal with the United States amid nervousness in New Delhi that the controversial pact could slip away.

The deal, which aims to give India access to US civilian nuclear technology for the first time in three decades, had been expected to be approved by the US Senate last week before it adjourned for elections in November.

However, the chamber could not take up the bill due to differences between Republicans and Democrats despite both sides expressing strong support for the deal and pointing fingers at the other for the delay.

"The bill actually enjoys bipartisan support and it is our hope that this will find its way through US domestic legal procedures as soon as possible," said India's new foreign secretary, Shiv Shankar Menon.

"I think our interest in the agreement, in it passing through Congress and our interest in the terms staying as they are, is quite clear," Menon told reporters after taking office.

Privately, some senior Indian officials expressed helplessness about a deal that has faced a storm of opposition in both countries since it was agreed in principle by President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in July 2005.

The Senate could take up the bill when it returns for a "lame duck" session after the November elections, but other approvals are needed beyond that and they are likely to push the deal's final fate into 2007.

Senate failure to do so would mean the entire approval process must start from scratch and go through a new Senate and a new House of Representatives, despite the House having already voted overwhelmingly in support of the deal.

"SIGNIFICANT SETBACK"

"There is little we can do now but wait," one Indian official told Reuters.

"Whether the bipartisan support is real or whether all the delays were a ploy to camouflage the opposition to the deal by supporters of non-proliferation will be known in the coming months," he said.

The deal, a sign of blossoming energy, commercial and strategic ties between the two countries, aims to overturn three decades of sanctions against New Delhi and supply atomic fuel and equipment to meet its spiralling energy needs.

But the non-proliferation lobby in the United States has slammed it, saying Washington was encouraging atomic proliferation by giving away too much to India, which has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has conducted nuclear tests.

On the other hand, many Indian lawmakers and nuclear scientists are wary that the long-drawn US legislative process could lead to changes in the original deal that would go against India's strategic interests.

US officials have repeatedly tried to allay Indian fears in the face of warnings from the Indian prime minister that any change to the original conditions could destroy the deal.

Analysts said the Senate's failure to approve the bill last week raised questions over the future of the deal.

"This is a significant setback, especially if the balance of power shifts after the elections from the Republicans to the Democrats," said Harsh V. Pant, who teaches defence studies at King's College, London.

He said the Democrats tended to be more cautious on issues of nuclear proliferation and if they recaptured power in Congress it would embolden them to repudiate Bush's foreign policy agenda.

"The US-India deal may just become one of its casualties."

Link: India resigned to wait as US nuclear deal delayed

 

[Bull]

However, the chamber could not take up the bill due to differences between Republicans and Democrats despite both sides expressing strong support for the deal and pointing fingers at the other for the delay

Nov 2007 it seems,

 

[Neo]

Bull,

What do you make out of these comments?

"Whether the bipartisan support is real or whether all the delays were a ploy to camouflage the opposition to the deal by supporters of non-proliferation will be known in the coming months," he said.

The deal, a sign of blossoming energy, commercial and strategic ties between the two countries, aims to overturn three decades of sanctions against New Delhi and supply atomic fuel and equipment to meet its spiralling energy needs.

But the non-proliferation lobby in the United States has slammed it, saying Washington was encouraging atomic proliferation by giving away too much to India, which has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has conducted nuclear tests.

If a new debate is held, will the stance be the same?

 

[Spring Onion]

White House upset with Indo-US nuke deal failure

Reuters

Washington, October 3, 2006


http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1811476,001301790001.htm


The White House said on Monday, it was disappointed the US Senate failed to approve a landmark US-India nuclear deal before adjourning, but expressed optimism it would be approved during a "lame duck" session in November.
The initiative, which would allow nuclear-armed India access to US nuclear fuel and reactors for the first time in three decades, "continues to be a top priority for the administration," a spokesman said in a statement.
The deal has been hailed by President George W Bush and others as the core of building a new US relationship with India after years of estrangement and a financial boon to American business.
But despite more than a year of upbeat assessments by administration officials and the intervention of Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the Republican-led Senate let the India bill languish when the session ended on Saturday. The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved the bill in July.
Ron Somers, head of the US-India Business Council, part of the US Chamber of Commerce, said, "When we all look back at this historic opportunity of aligning our two great democracies for the 21st Century, we will recognize that delays like these, though unfortunate, amount to small bumps in the road."
He and other lobbyists pledged to regroup and push anew for passage in the "lame duck" legislative session after the November 7 election, but the outcome is not guaranteed.
The session is expected to run from one to three weeks, and the press of other business, plus continuing disputes between Republicans and Democrats, could still thwart a vote.
"We fully expect that the Senate bill will pass during the lame duck congressional session and that it will be signed into law this year," said Andrew Parasiliti of Barbour Griffith & Rogers International, which represents the government of India.
"This legislation is a top priority for the Bush administration and has overwhelming bipartisan congressional support. It is the most significant issue facing US-India relations today," he said.
The US-India Business Council and Parasiliti's firm played separate leading roles in a heavily funded, widely publicized campaign to win approval of the bill making key changes in US law to permit the sale of American nuclear technology to India for the first time in three decades.
Senate leaders blamed each other. Senate Republican leader Bill Frist of Tennessee accused the Democrats of wanting to defeat the bill "by adding a large amount of unnecessary amendments," while Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Republicans seemed "more interested in scoring political points than passing this important bill."
If the Senate fails to pass the bill in November, the entire process must start again - the bill will have to go through the House, whose new session starts in January.
Even if the Senate acts, other approvals are needed before India is able to acquire nuclear fuel and reactors from the United States and other countries, virtually ensuring that final action would not happen until at least 2007.

 

[Bull]

Bull,

What do you make out of these comments?



If a new debate is held, will the stance be the same?

Frankly speaing this deal shoudnt be send as a standalone case.But its as part of a multi move by the US to woo India,the F18,Wallmarts delayed entry,booming Aviation sector ect etc.

So ots in the interest of both US and India to go for it.

Well you cant expect the Anti proliferation guys to support such a deal,as india as what they rightly say is a naughty boy.

 

[Neo]

Monday, November 06, 2006

North Korean test to impact US-India nuclear deal

WASHINGTON: One country that is likely to be significantly affected by the North Korean nuclear test is India, according to Peter Crail of the Monterey Institute of Non-Proliferation Studies.

Writing in the journal WMD Insights, he noted concern expressed in India over the impact of the development on the US-Indian agreement on civilian nuclear cooperation, which is hanging fire in Congress and may even face defeat in the event of the Democrats gaining control of the Senate. The house has already passed it, but the Senate has slapped on a number of amendments to it, some of which India finds unacceptable.

While India condemned the North Korean test, Pakistan called it “regrettable” but expressed little concern about its repercussions for Islamabad. Although India has refused to join the NPT and has, in the past, criticised the Treaty as a discriminatory regime, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stressed that the test was “a violation of (North Korea’s) international commitments”, and said “a further erosion of the non-proliferation regime is not in our interest”. Crail noted that in holding Pyongyang directly and solely accountable for the test and the resulting damage to the non-proliferation regime, India diverged from the stance of the 118-member Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), of which it was a prominent member.

While India has also been critical of the discriminatory nature of the NPT regime and historically has shared the NAM’s promotion of global nuclear disarmament, it refrained from making the linkage between the North Korean test and the stimulus for new states to acquire nuclear arms provided by the arsenals of the existing nuclear powers. Moreover, by couching its condemnation, in part, on North Korea’s undermining of the non-proliferation regime, India also demonstrated its slow but unmistakable shift from a defiant non-proliferation-regime outlier country — the status it reaffirmed when it tested nuclear weapons in 1998 — to a country that seeks to uphold the integrity of the regime and perceives itself as benefiting from it. “It remains to be seen, however, how far India will take its new attitude and, in particular, whether New Delhi will take as principled a pro-non-proliferation stand with respect to halting the Iranian nuclear programme, as it has with North Korea, given the economic ties between India and Iran,” stressed the nuclear expert. .

Crail pointed out that North Korea’s test came at a time when the US Congress was considering legislation to implement the July 18, 2005, nuclear accord between the two countries, which would end a decades-long embargo on US civil nuclear cooperation with New Delhi and pave the way for the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group to end a similar embargo imposed in 1992.

By causing the international community to condemn and stigmatise the entrance of another state into the small group of countries possessing nuclear weapons beyond the five original “nuclear weapon states” recognised by the NPT, a group of late arrivals that included India, the North Korean test inevitably undercut New Delhi’s efforts to legitimise itself as an accepted nuclear-weapon power, argued Crail.

The author noted that to allay Indian fears regarding any hindrance the North Korean test could pose for the US-India deal, on 12 October this year, US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns reaffirmed the Bush administration’s commitment to carrying out the agreement with India, drawing sharp distinctions between India and North Korea. Tony Blair has also used a similar argument in favour of the deal. It appears that there is a growing willingness on the part of some countries to respond to the development of nuclear weapons and their means of delivery on the basis of the actor undertaking the development, rather than on the basis the capability itself. It was not yet clear what impact this reorientation could have on the various WMD non-proliferation regimes, which are were focused on the inherent destructiveness of certain types of weapons, asked Crail. India has also used Pakistan’s nuclear links with North Korea to support its own nuclear weapons programme. It has criticised the “underhand” means employed by Pakistan and North Korea to go nuclear, compared with its own, what it considers, above-board and acceptable means to go nuclear, glossing over the fact that it has also resorted to nuclear smuggling to support its programme.

Crail concluded his analysis by observing, “By immediately condemning the North Korean nuclear test and drawing attention to the linkages between North Korea and Pakistan, India has aligned itself with the major powers and the non-proliferation regime, deflected potential questions regarding the wisdom of the US-India deal, and simultaneously put pressure on Pakistan by holding it partially responsible for North Korea’s nuclear weapons capability.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\11\06\story_6-11-2006_pg7_43

 

[Awesome]

India's inability to decide on the MRCAs keeps hurting them. The more time they spend, there'll be more people that'll expect India to go their way.

Whoever India chooses would be happy. The rest would be super sour.

The nuclear deal is not that good anyway, that India should go buy F-18s for them. India needs to separate the MRCAs with all the things its being mixed with. It already lost on its blackmail to Russia on not allowing the RD-93. Remember Pakistan is ALREADY buying F-16s, it can mix that with the nuclear deal. Which we've been trying to do already, btw.

India is probably going to go buy Russian planes. As pointed out by some Indian members here, India's eyeing Russia's 5th generation fighters as well. It might as well send the F-18 hopefulls, home cold.

With that hope out for the Americans, then they'd try to make the most of the situation and try to sell the nuke deal.

Isn't it weird that the white house failed to convince them to sell tech to India and succeeded in selling nuclear capable planes to Pakistan? They are not disappointed. They are in on it. In fact this is all the White house's move to see if India buckles and puts all its eggs in one basket.

It looks like a mess but one or two bold and clever moves can still pull India out.

 

[mahi]

my friend sid,
forget about what the west says ......there is a solid block of people in your own goddamn country that acknowledge the fact that musharraf was aware of the aq khan affair.....the only difference is that aap ke yahaan transparency naam ki koi cheez nahin,,,,,sab bandook ke dar se fizool ka patriotism dikha te hain

 

[Awesome]

my friend sid,
forget about what the west says ......there is a solid block of people in your own goddamn country that acknowledge the fact that musharraf was aware of the aq khan affair.....the only difference is that aap ke yahaan transparency naam ki koi cheez nahin,,,,,sab bandook ke dar se fizool ka patriotism dikha te hain

Coming new to a forum and asking God to damn Pakistan isn't probably the smartest thing to do. And please quote the message when addressing a post.

 

[Neo]

Mahi, please do yourself a favor and read the forum rules before making your next post.

Thanks!

 

[mahi]

Mullahs????? what they had to do with India im talking about sane segments of Indian society not ours

It whats the indian intelectual are syaing and considering. as for as i had read about Indian political history well i think she was very strong in the past and i think no super power had this kind of influence on her as this time we had seen.
Iran was more trusted friend of India than Pakistan so know it very well.

as for as nuclear energy deal well i wont comment cuz in a day or two i will submit my artilce on it.
(Hope no offense)

when india takes a leak pakistan has floods....aap ki happiness lene ke liye itna sa kaam hi kaafi hai
hope no no offence:

 

[mahi]

and jana half knowledge is worse than knowing nothing......keep it in mind
kuch to akal ki gal kiya karo,,,,,,homework karke login kiya karo